Hello RZ5. You should not quit. To be honest, your reasons for quitting do not make sense at all. ou are 30, so what? Many Bachelor and Master students are in their fourties and even older. Is 30 the age that someone should stop learning?
How would you know that you get a job in 3 months or even in 3 years? How can an Master tar a Bachelor? A Master with 2:1 is definitely better than a Bachelor with 1:1. How would you plan to explain to prospectus employers about time spent in Master with no degree? This would be seen a sign of personality weakness and lack of persistence.
Having a bad experience in one course is not the end of the world. Just finish what you started and one day (not very far) you would be proud and laugh at the idea of quitting the course.

The problem that what I was doing was not very novel but if was integrated into a system with the work of other colleagues would have made something worth publishing. In the end it was my PhD which I should have produced relatively new reseacrch that leads to "own" publication.
I just followed what he said and ended upwith neither a new concept nor a good overall system performance.
If you do not believe you d what you are supposed to do, then confront.
If you see after 50 % of PhD time frame, you have not accomplished 10% of your PhD, there is something wrong.
Supervisors are different. Mine was one of queitest. I should have taken actions rather than waiting for his actions.

I am sorry to hear this. I have a friend who encountered the same situation. In six months he was told to leave the lab because his supervisors did not think he would finish his PhD on time. He found it difficult to find another PhD with the usual question what was wrong with your PhD and requesting references. But after around 9 months of searching for a PhD, he could get a position and after 4 years now he is about to finish.
One alternative strategy is to search for a job either as RA in academia or industry then after one year, you look if you still wanna do a PhD. By then your chances will be higher because the supervisor would ask about your recent job more than previous jobs.

Sorry to hear you had a tough time. In acamdeia (also in indusry), there are researchers who usually do not like work except if is perfect. For example, when I reviewed some papers and gave a good review, other colleagues gave very bad reviews because they tend usually not to like the research of others (and sometimes even their own) easily.
At the end of the day, you will more likely end up with a good grade. The lesson you learn is to try to get used to such hard criticism and try to be less sensitive to it. There is no golden rule for this and assholes usually ittetates us but there are some strategies to "weaken" their effect but they will always exist.

I think the major problem in science (and maybe everything) is money. Applying for fund is difficult and applying for a funded Postdoc/PhD is competitive. Also when you become an experienced researcher/ PI you have to apply for your own fund. I think instituions and research bodies need to invest more in science.

it is up to every academic research to choose if they are happy to contribute to a particular application or not. For example, if someone is against animal testing, he has the right not to participate in any related research even if was not particularly the testing drugs. The same if the research is against someone one's religious belief and you are not in a position to change his ethical/religious/political view. Your point of view about how the research is not harmfull is irrelevant.
He might have thought deeply about the line of business of the studentship sponsor and then decided to add this clause.

Hi tru. I am also in the beginning of my fourties so this is one reason that holds me back. I think it is difficult for me because I am new to the company and they have their own focus. What is possible is to work less hours and dedicate the rest of the time to the PhD but this means also less salary.
About being committted, honestly I am not sure. This is also an important reason holding me back.

I was watching the sitcom "Friends", a conversation between Ross and Phoebe about how can an "average" PhD date a girl who used to be with scientists who won 1 million dollar grant. I liked the expression average PhD. All of us who started a PhD or even thought of applying to a PhD have dreamt of winning Nobel prize or being a highly distinguished scientists. The reality that most do not. Sometimes we get disappointed and demotivated when hit by this fact. Actually having a Bachelor has gotten us already above average in education. Earning a PhD degree is really something. How much percent of our aquaintance has a PhD?
So if you submit a PhD thesis and get your PhD and find a Postdoc role in a medium rank university in the UK which means a top university worldwide, it is worth to say congratulations.
I am not inviting everyone to try to be an average researcher. What I mean is to distinguish your achievements. Celebrate them. Try to be in the top 10 % but if you ended up in the top 40 % it is absolutely fine. People are different. Some can work 14 hours a day 7 days a week. Others were gifted by extra ordinary intellectual capabilities. We do not all have to be at the top but at least we should be far enough from the bottom.

Getting funding should not be a big problem because here there is no tuition fees. I may need some software licenses with a few hundreds every year. The question is how to convince a supervisor ( and myself) that working at evening or weekends will lead to a PhD in a reasonable time frame while many full time students do not accomplish their target in 4 or 5 years?
Some part of me believes PhD does not really require 40 hours a week for 4 years. But is it possible with 5- 10 hours a week? I have a family who deserve even this little time.

Hi all. I had worked as a research assistant while doing a PhD for 5 years but unfortunately things did not go well. The main reason was that our project was based on a previous work and the supervisor was not accepting any new ideas and demotivating me in most discussion. Of course I take most of the blame because I was not strong enough to self motivate myself. The other major problem that I do not work very well without short deadlines and guidance and we did not have meetings to discuss PhD progress until I was already 4 years into PhD.
Now I started a job in industry and I am happy about it. I just want to know your opinions about pursuing a part time PhD while I do a full time job. First question. Why do I "may" want to do a PhD? I want to be honest. I do not plan to go to academia. If I have time for professional technical development, there are a lot to learn in my field so PhD is not really going to help me much in my career. I am a passionate person and getting a PhD has been a dream to me. I know this sounds crazy because when I worked full time paid in my PhD I was not able to do it in 5 years. So how can I do it unpaid part time? I know also that my motivation looks silly but I want to be honest to myself first and to you. My brain and logic rejects the idea but my heart wants it. Anyway I am not going to take any action before a few months from now. Please tell me your honest opinion about what I think.

I would disagree about taking the supervisor opinion as a final assessment of your prospective career in research. We all have ups and downs. You may not have performed excellently in your PhD but this does not mean that you will "never" be a good researcher. You can learn from the experience and improve.
I know some guys who made excellent work with publications in prestigious journals in their PhDs and they have not performed as expected later. The PhD is a step and your supervisor has no right to "expel" you from academia. Of course you should take his critisim into consideration but only to improve not to lose your confidence.